Liberty Glass Co. v. Bartlett

2 Citing cases

  1. State ex Rel. Jones v. Dist. Court of Muskogee Cty

    173 P.2d 417 (Okla. 1946)

    This is the matter that should have been considered by the county court, and this phase of the case should now be the first thing for determination by the county court. The general order of remand of March, 1945, was void for all other purposes, and for such other purposes was subject to being set aside at any time. Liberty Glass Co. v. Bartlett et al., 140 Okla. 184, 282 P. 342; Buckley et al. v. Kelly et al., 126 Okla. 20, 257 P. 1107; Pettis v. Johnston, 78 Okla. 277, 190 P. 681; Stretch v. Murphy, 166 Or. 439, 112 P.2d 1018; In re King, Referee, 11 F. Supp. 351; Bancroft's Code Practice and Remedies, vol. 9, § 7429, pg. 9769; Am. Jur. vol. 3, pg. 731, § 1234, note 7; vol. 37, pg. 515, § 32, note 19; 5 C.J.S. 1511-15, §§ 1965-1967. What we have said concerning the efficacy of the district court's order of March, 1945, as a relinquishment of its jurisdiction of cause No. 29409, answers relator's contention that, once such jurisdiction was lodged in the county court by said order, it could not be reinvested in the district court by its order of December, 1945. The rule cited in support of this contention assumes or is based upon the hypothesis that jurisdiction was properly lodged in the lower court by the superior or appellate court in the first instance or by the first order. Thomas v. Thomas, 27 Okla. 784, 113 P. 1058; Moe et al. v. Goodroad, 45 S.D. 27

  2. Wood v. Reed

    193 Okla. 356 (Okla. 1943)   Cited 6 times

    In Milburn v. St. Louis S. F. Ry. Co., 119 Okla. 298, 249 P. 729, no attempt to amend the pleadings was made. In Liberty Glass Co. v. Bartlett, 140 Okla. 184, 282 P. 342, plaintiff had elected to try its case on one of two inconsistent theories, and we held that after reversal and remand it could not amend its pleadings and try the case on the other theory. In Kelly v. Oliver Farm Equipment Co., 169 Okla. 269, 36 P.2d 888, and Provident Life Accident Ins. Co. v. Peace, 175 Okla. 266, 52 P.2d 769, it was apparent that the litigants had offered substantially all the evidence available, and that they could not recover in a second trial on any theory contended for by them.